DHANRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, a challenge has been made to an order dated 18.3.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bali, Camp Sumerpur, District Against order dated 18.3.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bali, Camp Sumerpur, District Pali in. Sessions Case No. 142/2002. Pali in Sessions Case No. 142/2002, whereby the learned trial Judge has rejected the application moved by the complainant under Section 319 of the Cr.PC. for adding the additional accused to face trial.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully examined the material available on record.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case earlier a revision petition being S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 431/2005 was filed and this Court while dismissing the revision petition ordered that the petitioner shall be free to move fresh application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after statements of Meetha Ji, Genaji, Bhabhutaji and 1 Kishan Lal are recorded by the trial court. According to learned counsel, out of above four two witnesses have been left by the prosecution and two have been examined and after examination of two witnesses namely Meetha Ji and Genaji, application under Section 319 CrPC. was moved and that application has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali Camp 1 Sumerpur, District Pali vide order dated 18.3.2006 for the reason that firstly two witnesses have been left by the prosecution and they have been left because on producing them as witnesses in the Court they would not have supported the prosecution case and secondly the material available on record, the learned trial court reached to the conclusion that there was no satisfactory evidence available on record to summon the accused to face trial. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its correct prospective and further failed to appreciate the legal position in relation to taking cognizance of an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It has also been submitted that in the evidence produced after the decision of the Revision .Petition there was sufficient evidence to take cognizance against the persons named in the application moved under Section 319 CrPC. but the learned trial court did not consider the evidence in its correct prospective.